brusby
Well-known
It's been so many years since I've done this that I can't help you with links to current gear. Also, we used tall thin banks of incandescents with a polarizing film covering the opening. One advantage of that type of lighting is being able to see exactly what you are getting. As the polarizers were adjusted you could evaluate the image and reflections in real time.
I imagine with bounced flash it's a bit of a guessing game, although it must be considerably lighter.
I've never tried this with flash, so the first test I'd make would be to see if the modeling light and flash were affected in the same way by the polarizer. Make a series of shots with the polarizer over the modeling light and document the results -- such as "maximum effect at 12:00, min at 6:00) -- then try the same test with the flash to see if results correlate well. If they do, you can have confidence what you're seeing with the modeling light will relate well to the final flash photo.
I'm guessing that if you put a polarizer over a flash and then bounce the flash, much of the polarizing effect is lost because of the light rays bouncing at different angles. But I don't have any first hand knowledge of that.
Good luck!
Gregoyle
Well-known
As far as lighting, since you are photographing still subjects with a camera on a tripod, there is very little advantage to using strobes. Probably the most cost effective way to light the posters would be to use a few compact fluorescent bulbs to evenly light some diffusers made of stretched, cut up bed sheets. If you put the diffusers camera left and right, forming a triangle with the camera and edges of the vacuum board, you will get even lighting across the frame. I can try to draw a diagram if you are interested in this technique. The advantage of continuous lighting is that you don't need to care about power lost in diffusion as much because you can just use a longer exposure. Your strobes may already be up to the task; if so you can try them to light the bed sheet diffusers.
For a camera, probably the most cost-effective solution would be one of the first generation 24 mp DX Nikons with an inexpensive macro lens, like some of the AI Nikkors people have been suggesting in this thread. The 40mm AF-S Micro is also well regarded and has the advantage of being autofocus and is more usable outside of copy work. To get significantly higher resolution you would need to consider either the A7R or the D800/800e, which increases the cost considerably. One thought would be to rent one of these cameras for 2 weeks of intense copy work and then just shoot whatever camera you want afterward.
For accurate color, your best bet is to get one of the color correction and screen calibration setups. They are inexpensive compared to the equipment you are planning to purchase, and will remove most of your color correction headaches.
Lastly, I certainly hope you will keep us updated on your progress and results; I would love to see some of these posters!
-Greg
For a camera, probably the most cost-effective solution would be one of the first generation 24 mp DX Nikons with an inexpensive macro lens, like some of the AI Nikkors people have been suggesting in this thread. The 40mm AF-S Micro is also well regarded and has the advantage of being autofocus and is more usable outside of copy work. To get significantly higher resolution you would need to consider either the A7R or the D800/800e, which increases the cost considerably. One thought would be to rent one of these cameras for 2 weeks of intense copy work and then just shoot whatever camera you want afterward.
For accurate color, your best bet is to get one of the color correction and screen calibration setups. They are inexpensive compared to the equipment you are planning to purchase, and will remove most of your color correction headaches.
Lastly, I certainly hope you will keep us updated on your progress and results; I would love to see some of these posters!
-Greg
Gregoyle
Well-known
Oh, I should mention that I agree that the solution for getting the best results with lowest cost would certainly be an inexpensive flatbed scanner and automated photo stitching. You can calibrate it with a reflective IT8 target. The resolution would be as high as you want to deal with. At 300 ppi, which would allow life sized reproduction, we are talking 65 mp for your A1 sized posters.
With a calibrated workflow and automated stitching I think you'd best surprised how quickly it went. Scanners scan very quickly at 300 ppi. -Greg
With a calibrated workflow and automated stitching I think you'd best surprised how quickly it went. Scanners scan very quickly at 300 ppi. -Greg
